FLOOD PROTECTION SCHEME

Manawatu Standard, Volume LI, Issue 118, 20 April 1931, Page 2

FLOOD PROTECTION SCHEME

QUESTION OF BRIDGE. DISCUSSED WITH HIGHWAYS BOARD. Facts relating to the ManawatuOroua River Board’s modified scheme as it affects the Manawatu County Council were related to the members of the Main Highways Board on the occasion of their visit to the county offices at Sanson on Friday, and surprise was expressed by the board chairman (Mr F. E. Furkert) that the board’s scheme was still being pursued. The county chairman (Cr. W. E. Barber) in placing the 6cubject before the members, explained that the board’s scheme meant that the cut to take the waters of the Manawatu River passed through two main highways —Foxton-Shannon via Moutoa and the main No. 1 highway at Whirokino. On looking through the specifications of the scheme he had found that there was no provision for bridges other than the small lowlevel bridge over the cut in the centre of the spillway. The council was quite concerned about the matter for it considered it would undoubtedly add to the rate burden of the ratepayers. A board member: Will there just be one cut across the roads?

Mr Furkert: How often it is cexpected that there will be flood water through this cut? Cr. Barber: During my experience of the M.anawatu River at Moutoa I have seen the water over the road for two months.

Mr Furkert: Stopping traffic all the time? Cr. Barher: Yes. Mr Furkert: Will the diversion stop that?

Cr. Barber: That, of course, is the idea of it.

Mr Furkert: What is the difference if the flood water remains in the level of the cut and is kept off the road ? Cr. J. H. Perrett: It will be alright if the cut remains where it is put, I suppose. Cr. Barber: I understand that the idea is to take the artificial banks of the river down when the cut is put through and just let the river go. The cut is supposed to cut off 20 miles in the run of the river to the ocean.

Mr Furkert: If they are going to put the river across the cut like that, there must be provision for bridges in the future if required. Cr. Barber : There is nothing in the specifications of the scheme to show that.

Cr. Perrett: The board seems to be taking shelter under the omission of this provision in the Act. Cr. Barber: The Act gives the board extraordinary powers. Mr Wyny.ard (a board member): It seems a matter that we should certainly go into. Mr Furkert: It seems like it. Cr. Barber: The council is very concerned about it and would appreciate the board’s interest. At this stage the Act under which the board was granted authority for the flood protection scheme was produced, and, following a perusal of it, Mr Wynyard pointed out that there was statutory provision therein requiring the River Board to give the local .authority 14 days’ notice of its intention to commence work and to enable the local authority time to lodge objections. Mr Furkert: Have there been any big floods lately ? _ Cr. Barber: No, but I think it would force the issue if wo had an extraordinary flood and I believe the board has that point in view.

Mr Furkert: But there is not any suggestion that the board is going on with the work, is there? Cr. Barber: The Court is at present hearing objections from ratepayers in the classified area, and the council has entered its protest. The matter was discussed briefly by the Highways Board members, following which it was pointed out to the council that in the event of it being called upon to erect bridges it had its rights under the Public Works Act to claim compensation.